9 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Without being the ECF, is it perhaps the case that the £ 16585 includes the Darwin sponsorship? CJ did after all help raise it. His statement lead everyone to believe that it was in addition to the Darwin amounts. So he put money in, but measured in hundreds rather than thousands.

You have to have a proper financial audit trail for running major events.

The G man has now written that his comments should be taken to mean not that CJ made no financial contributions to or at the British, but they were nowhere near the amount implied. Indeed if we change "one of £16585 from me" to "one of £16585 via me", it all falls into place. It's taken perhaps five months to tease this information out and the opportunity to set the record straight was present but not taken at the ECF's AGM. In over words, there was a question posed which could have been used as an excuse to report the financial status of the event. If the British benefits financially from a buoyant total of entries, then Sheffield did well.

Indeed if we change "one of £16585 from me" to "one of £16585 via me", it all falls into place.

Well yes, though one might add that by the same token my postlady can congratulate herself on all the cheques she's given me.

But the real point is that "from me" is not a synonym for "via me", it has a different meaning and nobody would use it without intending that the audience understood the reality to be different to what it really was.

Anon 5 refers to a post by CJ which adds the Darwin sponsorship and the personal contribution. As pointed out by JB, the financial postings of CJ seem inspired by the concept of Bistromatics as documented by the late Douglas Adams.

But if correct, this blows away the Gidders theory that the amounts paid for GM participation in 2011 were around £ 17,000 to £ 18,000 rather than the £ 32,000 implied.